If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

FEMA Blamed for Needless Deaths of Pets

Shameful policy caused many pets' deaths
The ban against pets in Katrina rescues and shelters hampered the
evacuation and killed people and animals

BY KAREN DAWN

September 14, 2005

Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina, many of us have seen distressing
coverage of animals discarded on rooftops or at stations where people
boarded buses for Red Cross shelters. We have read stories of small
dogs grabbed by police officers from the arms of old people and sobbing
young children.

Some stories are almost unbelievable in a civilized nation. One man
survived for five days in a tree with his 16-year-old
dachshund-Chihuahua. His rescuers would not let him carry the dog onto
a boat. He killed his beloved companion rather than leave her to starve
in the tree.

In the midst of such tales we also read the quote from Michael Brown as
he left his post as director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. It began with, "I am going to go home and walk my dog." His
policies stole that last sweet comfort from those who had nothing else
left.

The refusal to acknowledge the bond people have with their animals
hampered the evacuation, since some people refused to leave. It also
increased, exponentially, people's loss.

Further, the official animal ban illuminated the class issue: Whereas
Marriott hotels welcomed pets as part of the family, Red Cross shelters
forced people to abandon that part of the family or to ride out the
storm. Many people died as a result. Others remained for weeks in the
disease-infested area.

Media stories have focused on the plight of the animals and of people
frantic over the fate of their pets. Only a few have been insensitive
to the issue. Perhaps most confused was a column in Slate Magazine that
contended that although it was sad the dogs were starving, "their
owners should have evacuated them - and themselves - before the storm
hit, when pets could be accommodated more easily." As if the destitute
folks without gas or even cars, who didn't head for the nearest
pet-friendly hotel before the storm, had only themselves to blame.

That column actually suggested that the deaths of people who would not
part with their pets were tragic, but not as tragic as the "chaos" pets
would have caused at shelters. Interestingly, hospitals and nursing
homes actually invite dogs in to raise patients' spirits. The presence
of dogs, although inconvenient, also could have been a morale booster,
whereas their absence has caused the greatest suffering for many people
who are frantic about their fate.

If dog bites are a concern, then surely cheap disposable muzzles should
be part of FEMA and Red Cross deployment equipment. And, yes, some
people are allergic to animals, particularly cats, which is why people
traveling with cats might have to be transported separately. It would
also be fair to recommend that cats be placed in adjoining shelters -
anywhere, as long as their families knew they were safe.

Let's compare our nation's treatment of animals to that of other
countries: In France, official policy allows dogs in restaurants. One
cannot imagine it would call for their abandonment during disasters. Do
the French care more about their animals than we do? The photos of
Katrina's aftermath answer that: people on rooftops or wading or
swimming through filthy water, having left every one of their worldly
possessions, but desperately clutching their beloved pets. But U.S.
official policy is out of touch with that reality.

In Cuba last September, more than 1.5 million people were evacuated to
higher ground before a storm. About 20,000 houses were destroyed, and
nobody died. The people were told to take their animals, and
veterinarians were provided. Far from causing chaos, the evacuation of
animals prevented it. The Cuban government did not have to deal with
people refusing to leave their animals or force them to leave them.

Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its
animals are treated." How embarrassing it must be for our government to
see that in emergencies the United States lags behind Cuba, whose
treatment of animals saved the animals' lives and those of the people
who care for them. In the wake of Katrina, the shameful no-pet policies
of American relief agencies killed some people, mostly poor. It
devastated many more, who will rebuild their homes but will never get
over the awful choice a great nation should not have forced them to
make.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

This is a very sad story. I have a dog myself and it would break my heart if
I had to leave it behind. The issue, that we need to realize though is that
the situation in New Orleans is not normal. This is National Disaster.
Taking a dog might mean having to leave someone else's child behind. However
heartwrenching this decision is, I would rescue the child and leave the dog.
Remember this is a situation close to a war. That's why they had to bring
the National guard and paratroopers in.

I live in Florida and last year, I had to evacuate myself. I took my dog
with me and made sure that I would go to a motel that took a dog. I couldn't
go to the shelter, because they didn't take my dog. So, I ended up driving
for 6 hours till 4 AM in the morning to find an hotel with an opening and
willing to take the dog. They charged me a lot extra and didn't seem to
care. I was thankful I had him with me though. All that is to say is that
I'm not someone who takes their pet for granted, but I do believe that we
need to be extremely careful about judging what went on in New Orleans,
because it was a C_A_T_A_S_T_R_O_P_H_I_C National Emergency and in drastic
times like that will call for drastic measures.

Kees

wrote in message
ups.com...
Shameful policy caused many pets' deaths
The ban against pets in Katrina rescues and shelters hampered the
evacuation and killed people and animals

BY KAREN DAWN

September 14, 2005

Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina, many of us have seen distressing
coverage of animals discarded on rooftops or at stations where people
boarded buses for Red Cross shelters. We have read stories of small
dogs grabbed by police officers from the arms of old people and sobbing
young children.

Some stories are almost unbelievable in a civilized nation. One man
survived for five days in a tree with his 16-year-old
dachshund-Chihuahua. His rescuers would not let him carry the dog onto
a boat. He killed his beloved companion rather than leave her to starve
in the tree.

In the midst of such tales we also read the quote from Michael Brown as
he left his post as director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. It began with, "I am going to go home and walk my dog." His
policies stole that last sweet comfort from those who had nothing else
left.

The refusal to acknowledge the bond people have with their animals
hampered the evacuation, since some people refused to leave. It also
increased, exponentially, people's loss.

Further, the official animal ban illuminated the class issue: Whereas
Marriott hotels welcomed pets as part of the family, Red Cross shelters
forced people to abandon that part of the family or to ride out the
storm. Many people died as a result. Others remained for weeks in the
disease-infested area.

Media stories have focused on the plight of the animals and of people
frantic over the fate of their pets. Only a few have been insensitive
to the issue. Perhaps most confused was a column in Slate Magazine that
contended that although it was sad the dogs were starving, "their
owners should have evacuated them - and themselves - before the storm
hit, when pets could be accommodated more easily." As if the destitute
folks without gas or even cars, who didn't head for the nearest
pet-friendly hotel before the storm, had only themselves to blame.

That column actually suggested that the deaths of people who would not
part with their pets were tragic, but not as tragic as the "chaos" pets
would have caused at shelters. Interestingly, hospitals and nursing
homes actually invite dogs in to raise patients' spirits. The presence
of dogs, although inconvenient, also could have been a morale booster,
whereas their absence has caused the greatest suffering for many people
who are frantic about their fate.

If dog bites are a concern, then surely cheap disposable muzzles should
be part of FEMA and Red Cross deployment equipment. And, yes, some
people are allergic to animals, particularly cats, which is why people
traveling with cats might have to be transported separately. It would
also be fair to recommend that cats be placed in adjoining shelters -
anywhere, as long as their families knew they were safe.

Let's compare our nation's treatment of animals to that of other
countries: In France, official policy allows dogs in restaurants. One
cannot imagine it would call for their abandonment during disasters. Do
the French care more about their animals than we do? The photos of
Katrina's aftermath answer that: people on rooftops or wading or
swimming through filthy water, having left every one of their worldly
possessions, but desperately clutching their beloved pets. But U.S.
official policy is out of touch with that reality.

In Cuba last September, more than 1.5 million people were evacuated to
higher ground before a storm. About 20,000 houses were destroyed, and
nobody died. The people were told to take their animals, and
veterinarians were provided. Far from causing chaos, the evacuation of
animals prevented it. The Cuban government did not have to deal with
people refusing to leave their animals or force them to leave them.

Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its
animals are treated." How embarrassing it must be for our government to
see that in emergencies the United States lags behind Cuba, whose
treatment of animals saved the animals' lives and those of the people
who care for them. In the wake of Katrina, the shameful no-pet policies
of American relief agencies killed some people, mostly poor. It
devastated many more, who will rebuild their homes but will never get
over the awful choice a great nation should not have forced them to
make.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

The problem is the blanket policy that FEMA has had re pets. That news
clips of a small boy having his dog ripped from his arms when trying to
orderly evacuate was heart wrenching. There is no reason small dogs
can't be taken and larger ones when the situation allows. They do not
replace a child in the rescue efforts. If they can make rules for dogs
travelling in the passenger compartments of airliners, then they can do
it when evacuating. No civilized organization would force someone to
strangle their small pet before they could be rescued.

BTW the "rationale" for ripping the small dog away from the child?
"Someone might have an allergy" (and it was a poodle) The poor child
was so upset he vomited from distress.

Kees Boer wrote:
This is a very sad story. I have a dog myself and it would break my heart if
I had to leave it behind. The issue, that we need to realize though is that
the situation in New Orleans is not normal. This is National Disaster.
Taking a dog might mean having to leave someone else's child behind. However
heartwrenching this decision is, I would rescue the child and leave the dog.
Remember this is a situation close to a war. That's why they had to bring
the National guard and paratroopers in.

I live in Florida and last year, I had to evacuate myself. I took my dog
with me and made sure that I would go to a motel that took a dog. I couldn't
go to the shelter, because they didn't take my dog. So, I ended up driving
for 6 hours till 4 AM in the morning to find an hotel with an opening and
willing to take the dog. They charged me a lot extra and didn't seem to
care. I was thankful I had him with me though. All that is to say is that
I'm not someone who takes their pet for granted, but I do believe that we
need to be extremely careful about judging what went on in New Orleans,
because it was a C_A_T_A_S_T_R_O_P_H_I_C National Emergency and in drastic
times like that will call for drastic measures.

Kees

wrote in message
ups.com...
Shameful policy caused many pets' deaths
The ban against pets in Katrina rescues and shelters hampered the
evacuation and killed people and animals

BY KAREN DAWN

September 14, 2005

Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina, many of us have seen distressing
coverage of animals discarded on rooftops or at stations where people
boarded buses for Red Cross shelters. We have read stories of small
dogs grabbed by police officers from the arms of old people and sobbing
young children.

Some stories are almost unbelievable in a civilized nation. One man
survived for five days in a tree with his 16-year-old
dachshund-Chihuahua. His rescuers would not let him carry the dog onto
a boat. He killed his beloved companion rather than leave her to starve
in the tree.

In the midst of such tales we also read the quote from Michael Brown as
he left his post as director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. It began with, "I am going to go home and walk my dog." His
policies stole that last sweet comfort from those who had nothing else
left.

The refusal to acknowledge the bond people have with their animals
hampered the evacuation, since some people refused to leave. It also
increased, exponentially, people's loss.

Further, the official animal ban illuminated the class issue: Whereas
Marriott hotels welcomed pets as part of the family, Red Cross shelters
forced people to abandon that part of the family or to ride out the
storm. Many people died as a result. Others remained for weeks in the
disease-infested area.

Media stories have focused on the plight of the animals and of people
frantic over the fate of their pets. Only a few have been insensitive
to the issue. Perhaps most confused was a column in Slate Magazine that
contended that although it was sad the dogs were starving, "their
owners should have evacuated them - and themselves - before the storm
hit, when pets could be accommodated more easily." As if the destitute
folks without gas or even cars, who didn't head for the nearest
pet-friendly hotel before the storm, had only themselves to blame.

That column actually suggested that the deaths of people who would not
part with their pets were tragic, but not as tragic as the "chaos" pets
would have caused at shelters. Interestingly, hospitals and nursing
homes actually invite dogs in to raise patients' spirits. The presence
of dogs, although inconvenient, also could have been a morale booster,
whereas their absence has caused the greatest suffering for many people
who are frantic about their fate.

If dog bites are a concern, then surely cheap disposable muzzles should
be part of FEMA and Red Cross deployment equipment. And, yes, some
people are allergic to animals, particularly cats, which is why people
traveling with cats might have to be transported separately. It would
also be fair to recommend that cats be placed in adjoining shelters -
anywhere, as long as their families knew they were safe.

Let's compare our nation's treatment of animals to that of other
countries: In France, official policy allows dogs in restaurants. One
cannot imagine it would call for their abandonment during disasters. Do
the French care more about their animals than we do? The photos of
Katrina's aftermath answer that: people on rooftops or wading or
swimming through filthy water, having left every one of their worldly
possessions, but desperately clutching their beloved pets. But U.S.
official policy is out of touch with that reality.

In Cuba last September, more than 1.5 million people were evacuated to
higher ground before a storm. About 20,000 houses were destroyed, and
nobody died. The people were told to take their animals, and
veterinarians were provided. Far from causing chaos, the evacuation of
animals prevented it. The Cuban government did not have to deal with
people refusing to leave their animals or force them to leave them.

Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its
animals are treated." How embarrassing it must be for our government to
see that in emergencies the United States lags behind Cuba, whose
treatment of animals saved the animals' lives and those of the people
who care for them. In the wake of Katrina, the shameful no-pet policies
of American relief agencies killed some people, mostly poor. It
devastated many more, who will rebuild their homes but will never get
over the awful choice a great nation should not have forced them to
make.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Joanne, it is sad. It's horrific. Realize this though. For all intents and
purposes, it is a war. In a situation like that, you have to be drastic.
Think about a war. Even the innocent and non participants get killed in the
process of trying to do what is right. I'll give an example. My mom was a
young girl, who lived in Rotterdam near the seaport during World War II. The
Allied forces decided to bomb the seaport, because it was being used by the
Nazis for their purposes. A bomb went astray and fell on her house, or more
accurately the neighbour's home. The homes were all connected, sort of like
townhouses in the USA. The neighbour was a doctor, who had his office in the
house. His whole waiting room was filled with patients and he had 12 kids.
Everyone was killed. My mom and her family lost everything. They were
homeless in a second and lost their whole home.

Realize this: The bomb came on innocent people and it was delivered by the
Allied forces, like the USA, Canada, and the UK, not by the Nazis.

Am I or are my parents not thankful for the Allied forces? ABSOLUTELY, they
did what had to be done. Things happen that were bad. The situation is too
drastic. I would never ever want there to be an investigation into the pilot
of the plane, or whoever released the bomb. I'm thankful for that person,
because he gave his life for me and my country. It is war.

That's how I see this whole situation. I feel horrible for that kid though.
I would vomit too, if that happened to my dog. I love my dog.

Now, if that situation happened in a normal regular life situation. I would
have a huge investigation going on and I would be for imprisoning the
person, who did that. This is different though. It is too drastic to not
take drastic measures. For all intents and purposes, a huge city was pretty
much wiped off the map.

Kees

wrote in message
ups.com...
The problem is the blanket policy that FEMA has had re pets. That news
clips of a small boy having his dog ripped from his arms when trying to
orderly evacuate was heart wrenching. There is no reason small dogs
can't be taken and larger ones when the situation allows. They do not
replace a child in the rescue efforts. If they can make rules for dogs
travelling in the passenger compartments of airliners, then they can do
it when evacuating. No civilized organization would force someone to
strangle their small pet before they could be rescued.

BTW the "rationale" for ripping the small dog away from the child?
"Someone might have an allergy" (and it was a poodle) The poor child
was so upset he vomited from distress.

Kees Boer wrote:
This is a very sad story. I have a dog myself and it would break my heart
if
I had to leave it behind. The issue, that we need to realize though is
that
the situation in New Orleans is not normal. This is National Disaster.
Taking a dog might mean having to leave someone else's child behind.
However
heartwrenching this decision is, I would rescue the child and leave the
dog.
Remember this is a situation close to a war. That's why they had to bring
the National guard and paratroopers in.

I live in Florida and last year, I had to evacuate myself. I took my dog
with me and made sure that I would go to a motel that took a dog. I
couldn't
go to the shelter, because they didn't take my dog. So, I ended up
driving
for 6 hours till 4 AM in the morning to find an hotel with an opening and
willing to take the dog. They charged me a lot extra and didn't seem to
care. I was thankful I had him with me though. All that is to say is that
I'm not someone who takes their pet for granted, but I do believe that we
need to be extremely careful about judging what went on in New Orleans,
because it was a C_A_T_A_S_T_R_O_P_H_I_C National Emergency and in
drastic
times like that will call for drastic measures.

Kees

wrote in message
ups.com...
Shameful policy caused many pets' deaths
The ban against pets in Katrina rescues and shelters hampered the
evacuation and killed people and animals

BY KAREN DAWN

September 14, 2005

Two weeks after Hurricane Katrina, many of us have seen distressing
coverage of animals discarded on rooftops or at stations where people
boarded buses for Red Cross shelters. We have read stories of small
dogs grabbed by police officers from the arms of old people and sobbing
young children.

Some stories are almost unbelievable in a civilized nation. One man
survived for five days in a tree with his 16-year-old
dachshund-Chihuahua. His rescuers would not let him carry the dog onto
a boat. He killed his beloved companion rather than leave her to starve
in the tree.

In the midst of such tales we also read the quote from Michael Brown as
he left his post as director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. It began with, "I am going to go home and walk my dog." His
policies stole that last sweet comfort from those who had nothing else
left.

The refusal to acknowledge the bond people have with their animals
hampered the evacuation, since some people refused to leave. It also
increased, exponentially, people's loss.

Further, the official animal ban illuminated the class issue: Whereas
Marriott hotels welcomed pets as part of the family, Red Cross shelters
forced people to abandon that part of the family or to ride out the
storm. Many people died as a result. Others remained for weeks in the
disease-infested area.

Media stories have focused on the plight of the animals and of people
frantic over the fate of their pets. Only a few have been insensitive
to the issue. Perhaps most confused was a column in Slate Magazine that
contended that although it was sad the dogs were starving, "their
owners should have evacuated them - and themselves - before the storm
hit, when pets could be accommodated more easily." As if the destitute
folks without gas or even cars, who didn't head for the nearest
pet-friendly hotel before the storm, had only themselves to blame.

That column actually suggested that the deaths of people who would not
part with their pets were tragic, but not as tragic as the "chaos" pets
would have caused at shelters. Interestingly, hospitals and nursing
homes actually invite dogs in to raise patients' spirits. The presence
of dogs, although inconvenient, also could have been a morale booster,
whereas their absence has caused the greatest suffering for many people
who are frantic about their fate.

If dog bites are a concern, then surely cheap disposable muzzles should
be part of FEMA and Red Cross deployment equipment. And, yes, some
people are allergic to animals, particularly cats, which is why people
traveling with cats might have to be transported separately. It would
also be fair to recommend that cats be placed in adjoining shelters -
anywhere, as long as their families knew they were safe.

Let's compare our nation's treatment of animals to that of other
countries: In France, official policy allows dogs in restaurants. One
cannot imagine it would call for their abandonment during disasters. Do
the French care more about their animals than we do? The photos of
Katrina's aftermath answer that: people on rooftops or wading or
swimming through filthy water, having left every one of their worldly
possessions, but desperately clutching their beloved pets. But U.S.
official policy is out of touch with that reality.

In Cuba last September, more than 1.5 million people were evacuated to
higher ground before a storm. About 20,000 houses were destroyed, and
nobody died. The people were told to take their animals, and
veterinarians were provided. Far from causing chaos, the evacuation of
animals prevented it. The Cuban government did not have to deal with
people refusing to leave their animals or force them to leave them.

Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its
animals are treated." How embarrassing it must be for our government to
see that in emergencies the United States lags behind Cuba, whose
treatment of animals saved the animals' lives and those of the people
who care for them. In the wake of Katrina, the shameful no-pet policies
of American relief agencies killed some people, mostly poor. It
devastated many more, who will rebuild their homes but will never get
over the awful choice a great nation should not have forced them to
make.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

wrote in message
ups.com...
The problem is the blanket policy that FEMA has had re pets. That news
clips of a small boy having his dog ripped from his arms when trying to
orderly evacuate was heart wrenching. There is no reason small dogs
can't be taken and larger ones when the situation allows. They do not
replace a child in the rescue efforts. If they can make rules for dogs
travelling in the passenger compartments of airliners, then they can do
it when evacuating. No civilized organization would force someone to
strangle their small pet before they could be rescued.

As I posted in another forum, I'm under the impression that there were quite
a number of people who could have left New Orleans with their pets (they had
their own transport), yet didn't because they heard over and over, "You
can't bring your pet to the shelter." But that doesn't mean you can't load
up your car and take your pet out of the city with you.

I know for a fact in the big Gulf storm of '92, whatever it was called,
thousands of people evacuated. Friend of mine worked as a paid Red Cross
person in Jackson, Miss. at that time. There were signs on the Red Cross
shelter directing people to the Jackson Humane Society, who was helping
place the pets and livestock that they had evacuated with. It had been
publicized, of course, that you couldn't take your pet to the shelter.

So none of this was new for the various humane orgs. What I'd like to know
is, why the heck didn't the humane orgs tell the media, "We will have
representatives at various evacuation shelters to help people who bring
their pets"? If they did, I never heard it on radio. They'd done this
before, fer cryin' out loud. There are probably several thousand people who
would have taken their pets with them when they left instead of leaving 'em
behind, and others who would have evacuated to a safe place rather than
staying in such a dangerous situation.

Yes, I know that the folks who had to rely on public transport would still
be SOL. But at least some pets would've been saved, and possibly some
people.

"Kees Boer" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
Joanne, it is sad. It's horrific. Realize this though. For all intents and
purposes, it is a war. In a situation like that, you have to be drastic.
Think about a war. Even the innocent and non participants get killed in
the process of trying to do what is right. I'll give an example. My mom
was a young girl, who lived in Rotterdam near the seaport during World War
II. The Allied forces decided to bomb the seaport, because it was being
used by the Nazis for their purposes. A bomb went astray and fell on her
house, or more accurately the neighbour's home. The homes were all
connected, sort of like townhouses in the USA. The neighbour was a doctor,
who had his office in the house. His whole waiting room was filled with
patients and he had 12 kids. Everyone was killed. My mom and her family
lost everything. They were homeless in a second and lost their whole home.

Realize this: The bomb came on innocent people and it was delivered by the
Allied forces, like the USA, Canada, and the UK, not by the Nazis.

Am I or are my parents not thankful for the Allied forces? ABSOLUTELY,
they did what had to be done. Things happen that were bad. The situation
is too drastic. I would never ever want there to be an investigation into
the pilot of the plane, or whoever released the bomb. I'm thankful for
that person, because he gave his life for me and my country. It is war.

That's how I see this whole situation. I feel horrible for that kid
though. I would vomit too, if that happened to my dog. I love my dog.

Now, if that situation happened in a normal regular life situation. I
would have a huge investigation going on and I would be for imprisoning
the person, who did that. This is different though. It is too drastic to
not take drastic measures. For all intents and purposes, a huge city was
pretty much wiped off the map.

Kees Boer wrote:
This is a very sad story. I have a dog myself and it would break my heart if
I had to leave it behind. The issue, that we need to realize though is that
the situation in New Orleans is not normal. This is National Disaster.

here comes the bullshit...

Taking a dog might mean having to leave someone else's child behind.

And taking someone without a brain (you) might mean somebody
smart like me would be left behind.
However
heartwrenching this decision is, I would rescue the child and leave the dog.

Well, this isn't fairy la la land where it comes down to
a scene like that. It NEVER came down to a scene like that.

The only ****ING scene it came down to was people
and CHILDREN with dogs
having their hearts broken by not being allowed to take
their family members with them because of insane, outdated,
irrational laws which make the goverment the enemy of
pet owners in an emergency.

And it also came down to people telling
the rescuers to **** OFF because they
weren't getting "rescued" without their pets.

Remember this is a situation close to a war.

A war on pets and their owners.

That's why they had to bring
the National guard and paratroopers in.

Yeah, a week late after all the damage had been done you
****ing moron! So what the hell is your point?

I live in Florida and last year, I had to evacuate myself. I took my dog
with me and made sure that I would go to a motel that took a dog.

Well aren't you frickin' wonderful and responsible!!!

I couldn't
go to the shelter, because they didn't take my dog. So, I ended up driving
for 6 hours till 4 AM in the morning to find an hotel with an opening and
willing to take the dog. They charged me a lot extra and didn't seem to
care. I was thankful I had him with me though. All that is to say is that
I'm not someone who takes their pet for granted, but I do believe that we
need to be extremely careful about judging what went on in New Orleans,
because it was a C_A_T_A_S_T_R_O_P_H_I_C National Emergency and in drastic
times like that will call for drastic measures.

So, your point is, that because our government and our president failed
us on a massive and historic scale, that nobody should care about dogs?

Are your really this ****ing stupid, or are you
just putting on an act?

"michael." wrote in message
...
Kees Boer wrote:
Joanne, it is sad. It's horrific. Realize this though. For all intents
and purposes, it is a war. In a situation like that, you have to be
drastic. Think about a war. Even the innocent and non participants get
killed in the process of trying to do what is right. I'll give an
example. My mom was a young girl, who lived in Rotterdam near the seaport
during World War II. The Allied forces decided to bomb the seaport,
because it was being used by the Nazis for their purposes. A bomb went
astray and fell on her house, or more accurately the neighbour's home.
The homes were all connected, sort of like townhouses in the USA. The
neighbour was a doctor, who had his office in the house. His whole
waiting room was filled with patients and he had 12 kids. Everyone was
killed. My mom and her family lost everything. They were homeless in a
second and lost their whole home.

Realize this: The bomb came on innocent people and it was delivered by
the Allied forces, like the USA, Canada, and the UK, not by the Nazis.

Am I or are my parents not thankful for the Allied forces? ABSOLUTELY,
they did what had to be done. Things happen that were bad. The situation
is too drastic. I would never ever want there to be an investigation into
the pilot of the plane, or whoever released the bomb. I'm thankful for
that person, because he gave his life for me and my country. It is war.

That's how I see this whole situation. I feel horrible for that kid
though. I would vomit too, if that happened to my dog. I love my dog.

Now, if that situation happened in a normal regular life situation. I
would have a huge investigation going on and I would be for imprisoning
the person, who did that. This is different though. It is too drastic to
not take drastic measures. For all intents and purposes, a huge city was
pretty much wiped off the map.

Kees

So,

Your point is, that because there was a natural
disaster (not a war) that all manner of ignorance,
hamfistedness, irrationality, totalitarianized stupidity,
and institutionalized marginalization, starvation, abandonment
and destruction of pets and/or the bond they have with their
owners is justified?

How come Cuba can handle this type of thing so easily,
sensibly and we can't?

I would suggest you move to Cuba. Have you ever been to a Communist nation?
I've been to plenty.

Don't answer that. I'm really tired of reading your
prepackaged stupidity after only a few posts.

Are you saying that I don't have the right to my opinion? Yes, Cuba might
be good for you.

thank you for your participation in this valuable
discussion nonetheless.

Kees Boer wrote:
Joanne, it is sad. It's horrific. Realize this though. For all intents and
purposes, it is a war. In a situation like that, you have to be drastic.
Think about a war. Even the innocent and non participants get killed in the
process of trying to do what is right. I'll give an example. My mom was a
young girl, who lived in Rotterdam near the seaport during World War II. The
Allied forces decided to bomb the seaport, because it was being used by the
Nazis for their purposes. A bomb went astray and fell on her house, or more
accurately the neighbour's home. The homes were all connected, sort of like
townhouses in the USA. The neighbour was a doctor, who had his office in the
house. His whole waiting room was filled with patients and he had 12 kids.
Everyone was killed. My mom and her family lost everything. They were
homeless in a second and lost their whole home.

Realize this: The bomb came on innocent people and it was delivered by the
Allied forces, like the USA, Canada, and the UK, not by the Nazis.

Am I or are my parents not thankful for the Allied forces? ABSOLUTELY, they
did what had to be done. Things happen that were bad. The situation is too
drastic. I would never ever want there to be an investigation into the pilot
of the plane, or whoever released the bomb. I'm thankful for that person,
because he gave his life for me and my country. It is war.

That's how I see this whole situation. I feel horrible for that kid though.
I would vomit too, if that happened to my dog. I love my dog.

Now, if that situation happened in a normal regular life situation. I would
have a huge investigation going on and I would be for imprisoning the
person, who did that. This is different though. It is too drastic to not
take drastic measures. For all intents and purposes, a huge city was pretty
much wiped off the map.

Kees

So,

Your point is, that because there was a natural
disaster (not a war) that all manner of ignorance,
hamfistedness, irrationality, totalitarianized stupidity,
and institutionalized marginalization, starvation, abandonment
and destruction of pets and/or the bond they have with their
owners is justified?

How come Cuba can handle this type of thing so easily,
sensibly and we can't?

Don't answer that. I'm really tired of reading your
prepackaged stupidity after only a few posts.

thank you for your participation in this valuable
discussion nonetheless.